Huckabee is such a shill.

His morals are a weathervane in a Wizard of Oz scene.

Procreation has nothing to do with marriage; if it did, old flaccid pricks would not be allowed to marry young nubile airheads.

This is just another example of the "haves" (those who have the right to marry) prohibiting the "have nots" (those who don't have the right) from being equal.

It's petty and snobbish and crass.

Huckabee is a craven little man, as are most people like him.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Marriage promotes order and discourages random sexual encounters which may spread disease or create offspring without parents to care for them.
Marriage provides a measure financial stability and a structured family unit extra-protected by laws in which children are better off.


Seems to me that by your description of what a marriage is supposed to do, there's ample reason to allow homosexuals to marry.

>> ^nadabu:
You didn't quite get it. Definitions can only be "exclusive" when they are laid down by an authority over people being included and excluded. Again, this only matters because the government is defining this. Otherwise, we can all just keep our own definitions.

You're right...I didn't get that from what you said. You said "For those who don't dig the Bible, why do you care what the government calls this or that relationship?".

I guess for the same reason people who do dig the Bible care what the government calls this or that relationship. It's not good enough to say "I don't think the govt should have anything to do with marriage...but as long as they do it will be enforced the way my religion sees it and you people should leave it alone".

You then said..."Why get pissy about the word "marriage"? Fight for your civil liberties. Fight for tax equality and visitation rights and all those practical deals. Aren't those what really matters? Why create so much heat and noise about a freaking religious label?"

Here you are implying religious ownership to the word marriage as a "religious label" that none religious people shouldn't care about. You also seem to turn a blind eye to the opposition to gay marriage. You refer to the people who support it as being "pissy about the word" is that not also true to those who oppose gay marriage? You wonder "why do you care what the government calls this or that relationship?" but don't wonder why those who oppose gay marriage care what the govt calls it.

I get the feeling you are like many people who oppose gay marriage. As long as the govt defined it and enforced it the way you agree with you didn't have a problem with it. But your starting to see the writing on the wall. That it's a matter of time before things get reversed and the govt defines it and enforces it in a way you do not agree with. So now is the time to get govt out of the "marriage" business...you'll even say "it never should have been involved in it" yet people like you never really had a problem with the way it used to be...it's only what you see coming that truly bothers you.

So now you want to dump over the game board and go home. Let's get govt out of it and leave "marriage" to it's rightful owner...religion.

>> ^Psychologic:
So it's a choice between equal rights and changing the meaning of a word. Hmm, equal rights vs a word... hmmm... yea, that's a tough one...


Uh... you don't get it either. It's also a violation of rights to go around forcing religious people to change their definition of marriage, which is sacred to them. This is why the government has no right and no business defining or officiating marriage in the first place.

@entr0py
What Salt Lake City is doing sounds like the perfect start! That's the way it should be done. Leave marriage to those who care about the word, and have the government focus on the *practical* aspects.

>> ^Grimm:
>> ^nadabu:
I'd still love it if someone could just lay out for me a good reason why marriage is or ever should be the government's business.

I agree with you on this point....but can you also lay out for me a good reason why the word marriage should be exclusively defined for all people by religion?
It just seems silly that it has all come down to an argument of semantics. The gays can have the same rights as a married couple just as long as they don't use the word "married". That by letting them use the same word it somehow gives them power over others and their own beliefs of what marriage is.


You didn't quite get it. Definitions can only be "exclusive" when they are laid down by an authority over people being included and excluded. Again, this only matters because the government is defining this. Otherwise, we can all just keep our own definitions.

btw we should redefine marriage (again) but qm and huckabee are right in that it would be a redefinition.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Psychologic:
So it's a choice between equal rights and changing the meaning of a word. Hmm, equal rights vs a word... hmmm... yea, that's a tough one...


Your talking about separate but equal...the supreme court has already decided that by definition separate is not equal. We change the meanings of words all the time. The word "marriage" itself does not even hold the same meaning to all people in all religions (and non-religions) around the world today and has changed itself even within those cultures over time.

>> ^nadabu:
I'd still love it if someone could just lay out for me a good reason why marriage is or ever should be the government's business.


I agree with you on this point....but can you also lay out for me a good reason why the word marriage should be exclusively defined for all people by religion?

It just seems silly that it has all come down to an argument of semantics. The gays can have the same rights as a married couple just as long as they don't use the word "married". That by letting them use the same word it somehow gives them power over others and their own beliefs of what marriage is.

>> ^Lodurr:
I'm an open-minded guy, and non-religious, and I've been doubtful of my own position based on who else has the same position I do. I agree with Huckabee, but for none of the reasons he gave.
I look at the argument differently than both Stewart and Huckabee. We have to examine what the purpose of our government recognizing marriages and unions is in the first place. I think its purpose was to help couples procreate by giving them the money to support children. We still have positive population growth in the US, but all the countries that have or are moving towards negative population growth have a real need to grant incentives for couples to procreate.
With that in mind, why should the government grant the same financial incentives to same-sex couples?


Last I checked you
1) didn't have to be married (or smart, wealthy, black/white/whatever) to make babies
2) can be married and make babies with people other than your husband/wife.

The government still supports those babies, so how does marriage make making babies any more or less of a convenience for the government? As long as people have sex organs there will be people who make babies.

Oh, and there will be gay and lesbian couples out there who can adopt all those poor poor bastard children out there, if only we'd let them.

Quantum, what exactly ARE the benefits of marriage?

I'm an open-minded guy, and non-religious, and I've been doubtful of my own position based on who else has the same position I do. I agree with Huckabee, but for none of the reasons he gave.

I look at the argument differently than both Stewart and Huckabee. We have to examine what the purpose of our government recognizing marriages and unions is in the first place. I think its purpose was to help couples procreate by giving them the money to support children. We still have positive population growth in the US, but all the countries that have or are moving towards negative population growth have a real need to grant incentives for couples to procreate.

With that in mind, why should the government grant the same financial incentives to same-sex couples?

>> ^Geo321:
Religious fundamentalists seem to think that they own the definition of marriage for everybody else. Marriage is not exclusively religious.

Oh but you know if they could make it so, they would. The bible bashers in the US would do their damnedest to make it illegal for Atheists to get married if they thought it would work.

Rights and privileges for all (who believe like we do)!

>> ^castles:
I have to agree with misterwight. As much as I disagree with Huckabee, it's very refreshing to see someone debate something as volatile as gay marriage with a calm and composed mien.
And of course, as usual, Jon is spot on.


pretty much what i was gonna say. This is why I like Huckabee. I dont agree with most of his views but I can respect the guy that can ........... what castles said

Marriage is about unity. And in that sense, the two sexes are interchangeable. That's the whole point of this argument.

>> ^quantumushroom:
In order to believe that gay 'marriage' is equal to heterosexual marriage, one must believe that there are no differences between men and women and that the two sexes are interchangeable.
It just ain't so.

I have to agree with misterwight. As much as I disagree with Huckabee, it's very refreshing to see someone debate something as volatile as gay marriage with a calm and composed mien.

And of course, as usual, Jon is spot on.